In his new online magazine The Commentator, Robin Shepherd writes about the BBC in the light of the recent observations about the BBC by Michael Buerk and Peter Sissons. He concludes:
“Three possible strategies come to mind: work to reform it; work around it by pressing for a freeing up of the regulatory environment so that a robust competitor can be established in the private sector; or work to abolish it.”
The first has been tried. That is no reason not to try again. But the rot runs so deep that we may have to face the prospect that the BBC is simply unreformable.”
I’m not certain who has tried to reform the BBC. I understand it has been tinkered with from time to time; a new appointee here and there, a few MPs have grumbled. Then there’s this website as well as frequent references on other websites where the BBC’s bias is taken as read. (Or should that be red.) But this hardly constitute a *strategy*.
The second is a good idea regardless of what the BBC does. In an open society it is deplorable that the state should dictate who can say what in the public domain. The airwaves should be free.
Whatever regulatory restrictions there are that prevent robust competition, the BBC will always have the upper hand, as the residual effect of its reputation for excellence and impartiality still lingers in the public’s perception, despite its own suicidal efforts to squander the lot.
Look at the way everyone sneers at Fox Sky CNN etc. The only one they praise is Al-Jazeera.
“Looking to the long term, the third (Working to abolish it)
is a less remote possibility than it might currently appear. While today’s political establishment is largely supportive of the BBC, there are significant strands of opinion taking shape within it that have grave misgivings about the way things have been going.”
We are ‘a strand with grave misgivings’, but so what? Where’s the motivation for a parliamentary decision to scrap the licence fee, or whatever it would take? Politicians and the BBC need each other, so MPs are hardly likely to be so radical.
I must say I regret the disappearance of the BBC spokespersons who used to engage with us here on B-BBC. One of them implied that doing so was frowned upon by the powers that be, so a fatwa of some sort might have been decreed. On the other hand, they might have dismissed us as a bunch of right-wing mouth-frothers unworthy of whatever credibility any of their precious attention might bestow upon us.
People complain that we don’t want unbias, only our kind of bias. As has been noted, true impartiality is strictly for inanimate objects. There is one kind of bias that we should embrace, bias towards ’good’ and against ‘bad.’ We certainly differ over what constitutes good and bad, but meddling with omissions, emotive language, selectivity and disproportionate emphases in news reporting is irresponsible and dangerous.
Finally, I saw some comments on Guido’s blog, and I’ve seen similar here too, to the effect that some people don’t see why they should care about the Middle East. About The Commentator:
“Israel, arentcha sick of hearing about it? It’s alright in small doses to keep informed about what’s going on, but it’s tedious having it front and centre on a new centre right site. Boring.”
and:
“ The reast of the world would be happy if the whole bloody middle-east were just to fuck off and die, quietly please.”
People boast about their own ignorance when they haven’t got the brains to see that they should be ashamed of it. We can’t all be interested in everything, I know, and it takes all sorts etc., and no doubt such people have opinions about something or other, otherwise they wouldn’t bother to comment on a blog. But I wonder what has made them think that displaying perverse bravado is a good idea, rather than a gigantic embarrassment.
Bang on. Before you even need to get in the weeds about the specifics of any issue, there’s the bottom line that large chunks of the BBC’s output doesn’t even qualify as actual journalism.
I’m pretty sure that if aliens landed in Nottingham tomorriw, the BBC’s coverage would still revolve around liberals from North London asking each other how they feel about it all.
I cannot forget how the complaints about Jonathan Ross were dismissed as irrelevant because they came from ‘Daily Mail readers’.
There’s always the strategy of letting the BBC wither on the vine, a process which might have started with the lengthy freeze on the licence fee.
When that ends, if it does end as planned and isn’t extended, the world of broadcasting will have moved on and developed quite a bit, possibly with the internet playing the most important part.
Hopefully, at long last, we are seeing the beginning of the end of the 1920s model of broadcasting in this country.
“One of them implied that doing so was frowned upon by the powers that be, so a fatwa of some sort might have been decreed”
No fatwa issued to me (though I can’t speak for others). In the end I’m just too busy and the last time I posted Robin pulled out the comment and went google-tastic on me… turning it all it into a full on blog post. There’s not much point trying to engage if everything you say is blown up like that.
And there was a large amount of going round in circles covering stuff that I’d already comprehensively replied to when I used to post here more regularly. But as far as I know there’s nothing to stop other BBC staff responding to points made here.
I welcome your participation. What would you say prevents others from responding to points made here?
I should think many staff are completely unaware of this blog to be honest.
I’ll ignore the veiled put-down in that and ask what would you advise we do to draw it to their attention? After all, complacency is not much of a virtue, wouldn’t you say?
‘…many staff are completely unaware of this blog…’
If so, possibly due to a rather insular attitude to sources? A poor way to round out one’s self-awareness at best, so kudos to any who care enough to be concerned about the real world beyond only looking into a rose-tinted mirror.
One can presume that other blogs avoided, especially in the political section, despite topicality, and takes possibly not shared by such as the Guardian, are such as this:
http://order-order.com/2010/10/19/paranoid-about-left-wing-bbc-bias/
And just to be extra careful, if maybe just more so in the last few years, as this quick google generated there was once some awareness at least, surely…
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/10/biased-bbc-blog-in-the-bbcs-ar.php
Perhaps now all efforts at keeping abreast of news have retreated to those on twitter one chooses to follow (any who follow back who do not conform to correct thinking can soon be blocked), things have defaulted to the yoof segment of Aunty, who would indeed be unaware of such possibilities shared in more traditional ways historically.
Oh come on, Sue. This sort of snarky comeback is probably one reason BBC staff don’t want to contribute. Even at it’s very best posting here is like being at a rather heated Islington Dinner Party (TM) where every guest violently disagrees with you. It’s pretty wearing and more than that you have to keep smiling and avoid the easy put down or being sarcastic because you are the public face of the BBC and you are basically going on record by commentating.
At it’s worst, well as I’ve said before I just stopped bothering once people accused the white female reporters in my newsroom of being secretly married to and controlled by muslim men. That BBC staff were nazis and most were paedophiles. And frankly as a happy gay man Martin’s stuff just weirded me out. Especially when you can see plenty of other posters clicking the “like” button on even his most unpleasant comments.
I can see Sue that you remain passionate about your particular issue, but my knowledge or understanding on the Middle East is clearly much less than yours so I have little to offer that debate.
I think B-BBC achieved some notable successes in the early years (rewriting the Newsround 9-11 pages for example) but since then there’s a lot more stuff about the “tone” of reports or that people are “sneering”. I think bias like that is often in the mind of the poster.
I don’t stop by as often as I used to (and with the exception of your posts which I really am not qualified to judge) but I really can’t remember the last time there was a cracking post that made me think B-BBC had a point.
Had a quick look, and it appears Sue posted, you decided on a rare dip in to offer a counter view, and now in a few exchanges toys are already scattered around the pram as things did not work out they way wanted, as control is out of the usual comfort zone.
Its a blog. Comments can often get robust, especially if the responses blatantly invite rebuttal.
This reads almost as if the intention was to create a self-fulfilling prophecy and self-justifying excuse.
I hope no one rises to it in an unnecessary manner, but some claims, whilst entirely open to be made, are most unreasonable and need polite challenge.
‘ the public face of the BBC and you are basically going on record by commentating.’
Cool. Be honest, fair, and consistent. But don’t expect favours. Let others compel or fall in the face of your argument and manner. Their loss. Your gain. This highground does not seem to be a problem on a lot of twitter accounts where, despite ‘these views do not represent..’ disclaimers, the BBC affiliations are well flagged, and less than objective or sensitive or tactful views nonetheless expressed.
As to the bizarre cherrypicked claims then made, I am a regular and don’t recall any recently as described bar the episode with Martin. And when he went too far, what happened? Such revisionist attempts explain much of the BBC’s output. And were the BBC’s excesses in misleading or offending subject to such internal community censure. And in a free blog, what to do? Does the logic of this mean if a (possibly set-up) nutter post on a BBC blog thread is so grotesque as to offend me to my sensitive core, I can simply throw my hands in the air and stop paying the licence fee because I no longer feel I can engage due to actions outside the blog owners’ control? That’s plain daft. Rampant factual inaccuracy, opinionated excess, undue editorial influences, etc by the corporation and staff on my dime… different story.
The rest is your opinion. Fair do’s. Can’t say a ‘defence’ such as this helps change one’s views on the closed mindsets prevailing if it was meant to be compelling in terms of logical argument.
There’s no BBC ban from me posting here but to be honest neither is it a duty of my employment. I do still pop now and again in just to see what’s being said but for the most part posters now seem to be moving along some pretty well worn tracks. That said if people have complaints about my work then do email me direct david dot gregory at bbc dot co dot uk. Always happy to talk one to one.
Ever wondered why we have to keep moving along these well-worn tracks?
Your dismissive comments just sound defensive.
How sharp must a B-BBC post have to be before you see the point?
Even if the sharpest point in the world came along and skewered both your feet to the floor you’d probably refuse to admit it had a point.
I haven’t seen any of your work so I’ve nothing to say about that, but I hope you aren’t as condescending to your viewers as you’re being about me and my efforts on this blog.
Sue I really wasn’t being condescending. You have your particular interest, I don’t know enough to comment and that’s where we are. Do you ever wonder about the points you make? Can you see another point of view or respect an effort to report all the sides of a complicated situation? (Wasn’t there one Jane Corbyn Panorama you liked?)
David, you may not have intended to be condescending, but that’s how you come across with a comment that merely tells us we’re insignificant little nobodies. A bit like that notice in the middle of nowhere that just says ‘do not throw stones at this notice.’
I wonder a great deal about about each point I make, and I certainly do see the other side because it’s continually thrust upon us by the BBC and repeated by people whose indignation has been inflamed by hearing only half the story.
It’s US asking YOU to see another point of view, and if there really was an effort to report all sides of the complicated situation we’d have nothing to complain about.
Yes there was one Jane Corbin Panorama we liked, and we noted it loud and clear.
Here’s an example of bias. Jon Donnison’s report just now, on Today.
The gist of it was:
“There’s been a change in Israeli Policy. The Israelis say they’re going to hold Hamas responsible for the rocket attacks even though ‘other militant groups’ fired them. The Israelis are a far more mighty military power. Several Palestinians have died, two Israelis have been injured. In this escalation it’s the Gazans who suffer.”
He did mention that a school bus was hit by a missile, and gave some other facts, but the overall impression was:
“The Israelis are being unreasonable. It’s unfair to blame Hamas for the rocket attacks. The dead Palestinians are innocent. Israel should put up with it because they are more powerful. Only Gazans suffer, entirely Israel’s fault.”
Alternative viewpoint:
“The escalation is due to the political upheavals in the region. Israel protects its people. Palestinians stabbed three Israeli children and their parents to death recently. Israeli families are terrorised by rockets. Hamas are Islamist terrorists who control Gaza. Israel targets fighters, Hamas targets children. Hamas makes everyone suffer. ”
The BBC might acknowledge occasionally that most failing Islamic states despise Jews, who they blame for their own inadequacies.
I know you don’t know much about the issue, but these are simple for any fule to grasp.
And I respect what you say on this topic. My knowledge just isn’t good enough to try and explore why the BBC says what it says about stories that matter to you.
Dear David Gregory,
No-one knows better than myself how it feels to be at the dinner party you describe. My whole life is like one long dinner party at which I’m the only you-know-what in the village.
This is largely because the BBC has managed to convince the liberal left intelligentsia I keep bumping into that Israel is evil, even though it hasn’t quite succeeded in convincing them of the virtues of the religion of peace yet.
My comeback wasn’t any more snarky than yours, which came across as belittling.
Everyone who looks in at B-BBC and other sites must realise that blogspeak can get vicious, and no-one would say face to face the things they say online without getting a slap. I can’t believe that Martin’s language actually offended you, he was our “eccentric” and is sadly missed. He didn’t like being told off either, so he might even sympathise with you. I know nothing about the far fetched allegations you mention, but they sound unrepresentative of the general thrust of B-BBC.
If I come across as passionate about my particular issue, oughtn’t you to be passionate enough about yours to rise above that silly stuff?
Someone said they hoped I’d get cancer of the ovaries once. I didn’t like that much, but it didn’t deter me.
As you know so little about the Middle East, why don’t you put in for a transfer? You sound like the ideal candidate, and good luck with chief Bowen.
Only joking. :*
Oh Sue!
“I think bias like that is often in the mind of the poster…I really can’t remember the last time there was a cracking post that made me think B-BBC had a point.”
If this is the best you can do it is hard not to agree with you that your posts are not going to contribute much.
“there was a large amount of going round in circles covering stuff that I’d already comprehensively replied to when I used to post here more regularly.”
How can anybody “comprehensively” reply to criticisms (on a day to day blog) drawing attention to the Leftist establishment bias of the BBC? If you had said you have responded to some specific criticisms I might have accepted your response. But claiming to have “comprehensively” replied just reveals your BBC mindset.
It is viewers and listeners who decide about the adequacy or otherwise of the output of the BBC, and in a free society they would have the choice whether or not they wanted to support you and your ilk. You got it yet?
In a free society no “comprehensive” responses are possible because what is true and false is the subject of continious analysis and debate.
This site claims that the BBC promotes the views and interests of a particular sub-set of society (let us call them The Guardian reader) in a way that is wholly contrary to the functioning of a free society – a concept which it is evident you struggle to comprehend. Nobody owes you a living.
DG means that he couldn’t even say hello without being asked to explain/defend the BBC’s policy on Global Warming/Climate Change.
Hello!
So, Dr. Gregory, when will you be interviewing Piers Corbyn?
I would love to, but I really can’t find a way in. And to be honest his recent stuff about earthquakes is just embarrasing. Even if we ignore that, whatever happened to the Stalingrad winter?
I see. So his betting winnings and prediction record against the Met (on which the BBC relies) is of no interest? Even if you can use the opportunity debunk him to risible deniers like us?
Hmmm. I find his website pretty hard to navigate, but as far as I can tell he won £14 with his weather predictions. And frankly I’d prefer to judge him not on technical wins with an online betting website but with weather predictions that work. Frankly his pediction of a freezing winter and spring appear to be pretty wide of the mark. As noted here Roger H is looking to track how Piers does vs the Met Office, that should be pretty fun.
But the Met Office is brilliant. Its predictions are never “wide of the mark” even though they have a multi million pound computer. You know what they say “GIGO”.
If you could get away from depending on Playstaton science and more on research carried out with the full vigour of the Scientific Method then the BBC might get some respect for its “science” reporting. Every piece of “evidence” put forward by the BBC for MMGW is modeled. You maybe should read them yourself – see how many times you see the words “If”, “Could”, “May”.
“ Roger H is looking to track how Piers does vs the Met Office, that should be pretty fun.”
Yes indeed won’t it just. Strange that “Fun”, surely not. We only have (10 years, 4 years [delete depending on which “climate scientist” you believe, Gore or Prince Charles] to save the world. Actually your great hero gives us only 1.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama
The BBC is a disgrace when it comes to science and any scientist who can take all the psuedo-science as proof should have his qualifications removed.
And as a footnote please give a link to the names of the two thousand scientists who say that CO2 is causing CAGW.
Imagine if any other theory had so many holes in it, it
Well, for sure one can safely say there is no ban on posting here 🙂
And on that sunny note, cheerfully shared blog-wide so all can join in… a glorious, er, probably appropriate for the time of year… evening beckons!
The reason that the BBC don’t respond to criticism level at it on this blog and others must be because they think that if the corporation responds they are giving credibility, whilst at the same time proving that they are completely happy with the way the operate
Sue
DG is one of the very few BBC folk who have been civil in debate on this site. We should give him that.
But he misses the point when he says that this site seems to keep banging on about the same issues. The reason you keep posting on Israel, that Robin Horbury keeps posting on climate change, that David Preiser keeps posting on US affairs etc is that the BBC KEEPS MAKING BIASED REPORTS – week in, week out. Week in, week out this site documents current BBC bias, example by example.
And I love your idea of DG getting a Middle East posting – so long as it was to replace JeremY Bowen himself. I think that on past form DG would try to find some balance, would do a far better job than Bowen. But I don’t think DG would be likely to be considered – or likely to be interested.
Much better if he displaced Richard Black or Roger Harrabin. Or both of them at one fell swoop. DG may still veer towards Warmism – but I do not think he would block out dissenting voices, or go gaga over the latest climate-change alarmist report.
Maybe that is because DG has a reasonable level of scientific education, as distinct from an arts background larded with a self-professed “environmentalist” tag.
John,
He may be one of the few BBC folk who have been civil, but his civility boils down to politely telling us we’re no good.
🙁